Graphics are “60% of the game”, according to Crytek boss

crysis3

By on April 14, 2013 at 11:07 am

The delightfully outspoken Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, apparently believes visuals are by far the most important aspect of a game.

“People say that graphics don’t matter, but play Crysis and tell me they don’t matter. It’s always been about graphics driving gameplay,” he told X360 Magazine.

“Graphics, whether it’s lighting or shadows, puts you in a different emotional context and drives the immersion, and immersion is effectively the number one thing we can use to help you buy into the world.

“The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60% of the game.”

Hey, Caevat? Minecraft’s on the phone with a few objections. In all seriousness, our review of Crysis 3 praised both its visuals and its gameplay, although other critics haven’t been as kind, something Yerli finds frustrating as he feels it’s the best one in the series.

Source: X360 Magazine

Tags:
35 comments (Leave your own)

I’d say 50% would be more fair, I love both and want to see both improving. I loved Crysis 3′s gameplay, it was the best in the series. He shouldn’t be so quick to turn his head on it and say “hey look at my graphics!”

 

Interesting. I just went from ̶s̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ playing Crysis 2 to playing a game from the late 90s and I’m having loads more fun. I guess he’s talking about a target audience that I don’t fit into.

 
AlphaSierra216

If graphics are 60% then what of minecraft?

 

Has Notch made an official response yet? Given that Minecraft is pretty much the first game that comes to mind when you think of gameplay > graphics, I’d love to see Notch respond to this.

 

Good gameplay can make up for shit graphics, but good graphics cant make up for shit gameplay. I think he’s got his percentages mixed up.

 

I can still go enjoy Half Life 2 more than any Crysis game, gameplay is king.

 

This is really a question of semantics.

If he means “all things visual” then yes, I would agree that it can be a huge part of the game. Look at Bioshock Infinite – you don’t exactly need a Titan to run it on highest settings, but the artwork, design, and quality of textures combine to give the player an overwhelming experience. As they say in the food industry, “the first bite is taken with the eyes”.

If he’s just saying “high res textures and a high poly count are more important than gameplay” he’s an idiot.

So… going by the first definition, Minecraft certainly has it’s own visual style, and it has countless graphical mods, downloaded a bucketload of times. So even Minecraft would kind of support what he’s saying (60% might be a tad high), if that is indeed what he’s saying. I’m confused now.

 

I think he should’ve said “art” rather than graphics.. Game Art is definitely 40% of the game, you cannot visualize what is happening without good quality art. As for the Tech, its un-necessary and in most cases bloats time to develop and costs to develop. The more advanced the engines get, the more harder it becomes to make game art for them.

We’ve seen game devs produce amazing art using pixels, pre-rendered 3d models and in some cases combinations of 3d models with 2d. These work and people like them.. So if its exclusive to 3D then I’m going to say Crytek are talking out their asses.

And gameplay is 50% of the game. The other 10% goes to music, soundfx. (Story should be apart of the gameplay portion if its a story driven game- non-linearity is a form of gameplay).

 

I think people (developers) discount sound and gameplay experience, depth (story basically) too much. You can do wonderful things with both, but yes, they would not be complete without nice graphics (and art).

I think mixing and chopping games into percentages is a bad practice. All aspects of a game are important, you can’t put a fixed percentage on it, or divide it up into segments. It’s all important for the overall experience.

 

ooshp:
This is really a question of semantics.

If he means “all things visual” then yes, I would agree that it can be a huge part of the game. Look at Bioshock Infinite – you don’t exactly need a Titan to run it on highest settings, but the artwork, design, and quality of textures combine to give the player an overwhelming experience. As they say in the food industry, “the first bite is taken with the eyes”.

If he’s just saying “high res textures and a high poly count are more important than gameplay” he’s an idiot.

Pretty much. The quality of visuals in a game are important but it doesn’t have to have high end quality to be good. A game like Super Meat Boy looks good, and would probably be damaging to the overall game if it was littered with shit like AA and particle effects.

 

auld,
Half Life 2 did all the things he’s talking about, though, just a few years ago. I don’t think he’s talking about sheer polycount here or anything, more about how quality graphics and art direction can help immerse players in the setting. Half Life 2 DEFINITELY did that.

 

To be perfectly honest, I only sussed out Crysis 3 to check out the ‘graphics no commercial rig will be able to handle’ that they totted pre release. Suffice to say, none of my hardware caught on fire with what I’d consider a mid-range PC today.
Don’t get me wrong, it was pretty, but for me, underneath all the gloss and glamour, it was just another generic shooter, with a rather bland story that I got over pretty quickly.

Now lets look at Bioshock Infinite as an example; the game was gorgeous, the story was remarkable and you were really able to get attached to, and care for the characters, but again to me, was another generic shooter, however the other elements outside of gameplay drove me forward to finish it.
I had a similar experience with Alan Wake, where the gameplay got redundant pretty quick, but I HAD to know how it ended, and pushed on to finish it, experiencing the STORY, not the graphics.

Amazing graphics are well… amazing, but if they’re not supporting a quality game underneath, and are being used solely as a selling point, then what is the point? Telling us that graphics are more important than gameplay, or any other area of the overall product is a cop out.

 

Baldur’s Gate > Dragon Age
Deus Ex > Deus Ex: HR
System Shock 2 > Bioshock’s
Duke 3d > Duke Nukem Forever

Hell I have more hours in Indie games like Atom Zombie Smasher than a lot of ‘AAA’s’ with cutting edge Graphics.
Really Hate this generation of pretty Graphics first and foremost, with actual Gameplay design, story-writing and innovation taking a back seat.

Quote is spoken like a true Dudebro.
“…he told X360 Magazine.”
Ah. That Explains it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQXbyeztSe4

 

I think you’re all arguing with something he didn’t say…Have another read…

“The better the graphics, the better the physics, the better the sound design, the better the technical assets and production values paired with the art direction, making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60% of the game.”

 

I think Cervat is losing the plot a bit. 60% of a game is Gfx? really? I thought a game was a collection of numerous factors that come together to create a unique experience for the user (well not always that unique…).

Crysis 3 is certainly the most graphically superior game in the franchise, but what it gained in graphics it lost in gameplay. It went from something awesome to something like cod…
Not a great way to go really considering it cut it’s teeth with open ended maps and objectives that were somewhat logical, then lost the plot with Trigen’s and stuff. Hell I don’t know any of my mates who played past the human levels of Far Cry. Then you had the fun of Aliens ruining an awesome tactical combat game in Crysis. C2 is best left alone and C3 is just lacking in the same way as C2. too heavily scripted, nothing left for the player to choose, just a linear game where the user just turns brain off and shoots everything that moves.

Pity really that he thinks it’s pushing gaming forwards. Graphics yes, gaming no…

 

I think it being misread is a little irrelevant, as it still comes to the same end point; heavy focus on visuals over other elements of design. There are plenty of games that don’t have photo-realistic graphics and 100% accurate physics (both exaggerations obviously) that still outshine any of the latest games in regards to actual quality of the game.

Graphics are nice, sure, and it is probably something a lot of people take for granted and expect these days, but when you take a mediocre game, and put it through the works to be the best visual experience possible, people will notice, but it will still be mediocre.
There is no reason you can’t achieve both, like I feel Bioshock Infinite did, and you can have games that don’t have all the bells and whistles, and still be more immersive/enjoyable games.
People have already mentioned plenty of examples from more recent titles like Super Meat Boy, to older counterparts, such as those Stolbs mentioned. I personally can’t think of any ‘bells and whistles’ game this gen that have provided me with as much entertainment/gameplay hours as I’ve gotten out of games like Thief3 and Vampire Masquerade: Bloodlines.

 

The first thing you can judge about a game is how it looks which is graphical but also determined by its art style. I am not sure which one he is talking out. Who wants to spend X amount of hours in a boring and visually unimpressive ( art wise) environment?

 

InAUGral: Who wants to spend X amount of hours in a boring and visually unimpressive ( art wise) environment?

everyone that played Dwarf Fortress ;)

 
steve_rogers42

alphasierra216: If graphics are 60% then what of minecraft?

What of the hundreds of mods that change the way minecraft looks?

I enjoy the way it looks than the way it plays, whilst it isnt as graphically intensive as crysis, if it didnt have decent visuals, it wouldnt be the game it is.

 

Alice, quote 3 is slightly ambiguous given its poor sentence structure but I’m pretty sure Cevat was trying to say:

Graphics + physics + sound + tech assets + production values + artwork = 60 %

Not (Graphics = 60 %)

i.e. How the game is presented is 60 %.

And who says Minecraft doesn’t have good graphics? Aren’t they good for what the game is and does? It’s a completely different game.

Personally I think it’s nonsensical to attribute a fraction of a game’s worth to any particular facet. A game’s worth isn’t the sum of its facets but the product.

i.e. 99 % presentation x 0 % gameplay = 0 % game

or 90 % presentation x 90 % gameplay = 81 % game

And the value of its presentation is entirely dependent on what the game needs to do. A simulator should aspire to have the most realistic graphics and physics. Whereas (correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve never played it) Minecraft is a cell domained game so blocky graphics and physics are all part of its schtick.

 
Leave a comment

You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]

Leave a Reply

PC Gaming Calendar 2014

Follow Games.on.net

YouTube

Steam Group

Upcoming Games

Community Soapbox

Recent Features
Civilization: Beyond Earth

Hands on with Civilization: Beyond Earth – dark, grim and surprisingly atmospheric

Or: "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Siege Worms"

World of Warcraft

Warlords of Draenor beta key giveaway: 125 keys for you to claim

Do you have what it takes to enter? (Yes. Yes you do.)

Wasteland 2

Wasteland 2 made me fall in love with turn-based RPGs

This Kickstarter-powered old-school RPG delivers in unexpected ways.

Streaming Radio
Radio Streams are restricted to iiNet group customers.

GreenManGaming MREC

Facebook Like Box